HATHAWAY & DURR

In the matter of *Hathaway & Durr*, Benjamin J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between the parties concerning orders to be made. The specific nature of the dispute, beyond the fact that it led to consent orders, is not detailed in the provided text.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination and formalisation of consent orders between the parties. This involved ensuring the orders complied with relevant legislative provisions, specifically sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which relate to the particulars of obligations, consequences of contravention, and assistance for compliance. The court also had to consider the reasonableness of engaging counsel, pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the *Family Law Rules 2004*.

Benjamin J made orders by consent in accordance with a minute of order signed by the parties, with a minor variation to a date. The court directed that the particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravention, as well as details of assistance for compliance, be set out in an attached Fact Sheet and included within the orders themselves, as required by the *Family Law Act*. The court also directed that an electronic word version of the minute of order be forwarded to the associate and that a copy of the reasons for the orders be placed on the court file. Finally, it was certified that engaging counsel was reasonable.